[GitHub] [mynewt-nimble] zacwbond commented on issue #783: Make ble_gap_rx_l2cap_update_req() behave like ble_gap_rx_param_req()

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

zacwbond commented on issue #783: Make ble_gap_rx_l2cap_update_req() behave like ble_gap_rx_param_req()
URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-nimble/pull/783#issuecomment-612911745
 
 
   > The reson why it differs between BLE_GAP_EVENT_L2CAP_UPDATE_REQ and BLE_GAP_EVENT_CONN_UPDATE_REQ is basically because over L2CAP you can only accept or reject the requested parameters. There is no option to modify the parameters here.
   > Having this patch, we could end up in the situation that remote devices requested for parameters set A, we reply over L2CAP that we accepted those, but in fact we set parameters B, which is not nice.
   > If master wants to change parameters, he can always do it, but if remote ask for the specific parameters set, we either Reject or Accept and set it.
   > 
   > I believe, that you need to fix you application and on BLE_GAP_EVENT_L2CAP_UPDATE_REQ does not modify self_parameters.
   > 
   > Hope that explains.
   > If you agree please close this PR.
   
   If the peripheral requests an interval between 16 and 20, and I force the radio through this mechanism to use an interval of 18, it seems to me I've still accepted the peripheral's request because the connection interval will still match the peripheral's request.
   
   I think the only invalid behavior would be to accept the request but to choose a  parameter out of the range requested by the peripheral (or to change one of the parameters that isn't given as a range).  
   
   
   
   
   

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services